• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Minotaur Media Tracking____________________ The BBC and “Europe” General Election survey May 14 - June 7, 2001 An examination of the treatment of the issue of “Europe” in the main BBC national news and current affairs programmes during the General Election campaign based on the full transcripts of what was broadcast. Conducted by Minotaur Media Tracking for Global Britain Contact: David Keighley, Minotaur Media Tracking, Tel: 01273 734852, Email: [email protected] Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 1 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking____________________ The BBC and “Europe” General Election survey May 14- June 7, 2001 Conducted by Minotaur Media Tracking for Global Britain Contents Summary …………………………………………………… 3 Introduction………………………………………………… 6 Andrew Marr’s election ……………………………….….. 11 Jeremy Paxman’s election…..…………………………….. 29 Coverage on Today ……………………………………….. 37 Coverage on PM……………………………………………. 57 Coverage of withdrawal/UKIP…………………………….. 73 Missing MPs…………………………………………………. 81 Daily log and notes………………………………………….. 83 Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 2 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking____________________ Summary The survey is based on the comprehensive monitoring and transcribing of more than 250 programme items. The analysis is divided into several key areas: first the coverage of Andrew Marr, the most high profile BBC political editor in the BBC’s history, and Jeremy Paxman, its most important television interviewer, responsible for conducting the biggest encounters with the party leaders. It then moves to examination of the main two radio programmes, Today and PM, and to consideration of withdrawal, an issue not on the agenda of the main political parties. Finally, there is a look at the handling of what was said to be the issue of “missing MPs” – those such as the Tory Europhiles who had, according to correspondents, expediently absented themselves from the main campaigning. At the end of the survey is a daily log and analysis of all the coverage, the core study on which the front-end conclusions are based. This section contains broad summaries of the main analyses. Introduction: The BBC output looked at European issues mainly through a paradigm forged out of assumed problems among the Tory party. The paradigm was based on a complex chain of editorial judgements, some of which were locked in the past. Analysis by the BBC’s staff did not properly put into perspective or explain the real current scale of Conservative problems over Europe, making it difficult for audiences to judge for themselves the true import of Europe-related issues. There was an editorial emphasis on Tory splits on Europe, completely out of proportion to the scale of the problem, and at the expense of the consideration of other issues on the European agenda .The editorial treatment of the Euro-sceptic case was too closely linked with Tories and Tory splits - the result being that the real substance of the issues involved was not properly explored, except from the perspective of those splits. There were relatively few attempts to pin Labour down on its approach to Europe, or to explore potential contradictions in its stance, for example over the speed of joining the Euro. The main themes explored about the future of Europe were the process of joining the Single Currency, aspects of expansion of the EU as seen through a speech by Lionel Jospin, and tax harmonisation. The differences that would have resulted in the relationship with Europe had the Tories won – such as the re- negotiation of treaties and wider reform of the institutions – were touched upon only lightly. Andrew Marr: Andrew Marr introduced a new style of high-profile impressionistic political reporting to the coverage of a general election. His daily reports were the pivotal focus of the BBC’s most important news programme in terms of audience reach, the BBC1 Ten O’Clock News, and also featured periodically in other programmes. The finding of this report is that, in his approach to European-related issues, in line with overall BBC coverage, Mr Marr paid excessive attention to Conservative splits, did not analyse Labour policies to Europe with the same attention to detail, and failed to give viewers adequate guidance about the real scale of the problems facing the Tories. In addition, he considered withdrawal only as a potential threat to Tory unity, and as something that the “establishment in this country” did not want. There is no suggestion here that Andrew Marr deliberately or consciously set out to be biased on the issue of Europe. The problem with his reports – with their high profile and strong impact – was that editorially, it was difficult to keep track on their overall cumulative content in terms of balance and fairness. The detailed analysis in this report is that in one important area, where line-by-line and day-by-day analysis has been mounted, there were shortcomings. Jeremy Paxman: The analysis has also revealed inconsistencies in Mr Paxman’s approach. At the expense of fairness, he was more much personal in his framing of questions put to Mr Hague than he was to Mr Blair. In his treatment of European issues, he appeared stuck in one primary groove of questioning: whether the Tory commitment to the pound was for longer than one Parliament. Of course, this was an important issue, and there is no suggestion here that it was not. But Mr Paxman’s strong focus on this one line led to a disproportionate emphasis on discord in the Tory party, along well-worn paths. By contrast, he made no effort to explore (with either Labour or Conservatives) wider issues, also at play in the election, such as the pace of integration, which could have illuminated the differences of approach, and discords within, both parties. Over the course of the campaign as a whole, the grilling of Mr Cook illustrated that Mr Paxman was just as willing to subject a Labour spokesman to a tough time as he was the Conservatives with Andrew Lansley and Tim Collins. The Cook encounter illustrated vividly Labour’s reluctance to stray from agreed party lines. But it was disappointing that Mr Cook was led into new areas of policy discussion, whereas Mr Hague, Mr Minotaur Media Tracking 1/ 21, Palmeira Square, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2JN 01273 734852 3 e-mail david.keighleybtclick.com Minotaur Media Tracking____________________ Collins and Mr Lansley were all essentially asked the same thing. On the topic of withdrawal, dealt with by the opening feature about the Paul Sykes letter, and through the interview with Nigel Farage, the treatment by Mr Paxman was distinctly out of kilter. The expedient use of Matthew Taylor (instead of an official Labour spokesman), combined with Mr Paxman’s mild approach to his interview questions, meant that the extent of Euro-scepticism within the Labour party was somewhat glossed over, whereas that in the Tory party was not. And the short interview with Mr Farage suggested that the only issue of relevance to the election as far as UKIP was concerned was whether it took votes from the Tories. That was an important consideration but not the sole one. Today: The overall impression conveyed by Today’s coverage of the election was that the Tory party was campaigning hardest on an issue that might explode at any time because of increased rumblings of discontent. As elsewhere, no precise indication was given of the scale of these problems, though there was concerted effort to speak to dissidents such as Roger Gale and Sir Peter Tapsell, on the Euro- sceptic wing, to Stephen Dorrell, Kenneth Clarke and others from the Europhiles, and from those who decided to leave the Conservative party over their stance over the Euro, such as John Leigh. By contrast with Labour, there were a few tough questions in important areas such as the ceding of sovereignty and progress over the Euro.. Perhaps the judgement was that such questioning would have drawn a blank, and that Labour was being pushed in other areas of policy. If so, the assumption led to an imbalance in coverage, and Labour’s problems over Europe – which extended to several areas, including the timing over the referendum, different levels of enthusiasm for the Euro - were scarcely mentioned or explored. (the exception being Andrew Marr on May 23, though he immediately said that the Conservative problems over withdrawal were more important). Correspondents on Today dealt with several important areas of the respective policies on Europe. There were imbalances in the treatment between Labour and the Conservatives. With the Tory initiatives, the main thrust was to show that there were problems. This approach, of exposing genuine problems in policy, may have been wholly warranted, but if so, brought with it special obligations to be even-handed. With Labour, the aim on occasions appeared to be to say that the policies were acceptable, even to the extent of pointing out that Tony Blair’s stance on the Euro was not an attempt “to bounce” the electorate into it, despite Tory and UKIP claims that this was a danger. In the analysis of points made by Tories, the imbalance was starkly illustrated with the correspondents’ treatment of tax harmonisation. Here Angus Roxborough, immediately after Tim Franks had outlined the Tory claims, said that the EC had responded by describing the allegations as ‘pure tosh’. But he did not properly describe the status of the remarks as an “unofficial quote” (later mentioned by John Humphrys) or give any indication of the weight that could be given to the statement. The Tories later described the interference as completely unwarranted and wrong – but Mr Roxborough’s report did not allude at all to such room for doubt.

Load more

  149

Copy Link